ML20127E128

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 930106 Meeting W/Util in Rockville,Md Re Insp of Plant Core Spray Spargers.List of Discussion Participants & Licensee Agenda Encl
ML20127E128
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 01/13/1993
From: Dromerick A
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9301190169
Download: ML20127E128 (28)


Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -

DocJ<d

,pf'p eA,h UNITED STATES

n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ j WASHING TON, D. C. 205b3 k....,/ January 13, 1993 Do ket No. 50-219 LICENSEE: GPU Nuclear Corporation FACILITY: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MEETING REGARDINr. INSFECTION OF OYSTER CREEK CORE SPRAY SPARGERS On Wednesday, January 6,1993, a meeting .vas held at One White flint North, Rockville, Maryland with GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN/ licensee) to discuss the inspection and testing of the downcomer to the core spray sparger No. 1.

During the testing the licensee found a small leak in one of the transition coupling welds (L-3A) of the downcomer. Enclosure 1 is the list of individuals participating in the discussion. Enclosure 2 is the licensee's agenda. The following is a summary of the significant items discussed.

The licensee presented a detailed description of the core spray sparger system and a past history of the results uf inspections and testing of the spargers since 1978 (see Section !!! of Enclosure 2).

The licensee indicated that during an air test of core spray sparger System No.1. the licensee detected a steady stream of air bubbles from the System 1 transition pipe coupling. A visual examination of the coupling indicated that there was a 1/8" diameter blow hole in weld (L-3A). They also stated that there was no sign of fatigue cracking or IGSCC and that there was no other indication detected in the remainder of the weld. Service loads are small.

The licensee also determined that the 1/8" blow hole defect in the 1/4" fillet weld is not a structural problem and that the blow hole leakage is 1 to 3 gpm l via the annulus. Even with this leakage there will still be a large flow margin above technical specification flow requirements.

Based on the above, the licensee concluded that in GPUN's best judgement the leak is due to a weld defect due to 20+ years of heatup and cooldown. They also concluded that a clamp over the joint is not needed and that they prefer not to install the clamp because of problems that could arise during l installation. They stated, however, that clamp, tooling design and l fabrication is ongoing.

As a result of the discussion, the staff advised GPUN that they should analyze the effects on the sparger system due to the limiting pipe break. The licensee should assure that under worst design conditions that failure of the core spray pipe coupling could not occur. The staff also requested that GPUN 1 r.O A 0 9 ju, ')

ue

GPU Nuclear Corporation  !

review their inspection results of the defective weld and determine what percentage of the weld would be acceptable in accordance with the requirements of ASME Section XI. Based on the results of the analysis the staff will make ,

a determination whether the installation of the clamp is necessary.

  • i Original signed by .

Alexander W. Dromerick, Senior Project Manager l Project Directorate 1-4

~

DivisionofReactorProjects-I/II -

Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ enclosures:

See next page Distribution:

Docket File i NRC & Local PDRs PD I-4 Memo TMurley/FMiraglia JPartlow '

SVarga JCalvo '

ADromerick SNorris OGC EJordan MBanic WKoo *

JZimmerman i HShaw RMcBrearty MRazzaque RHermann.

ACRS (10)

. VMcCree, EDO JFRogge, RI OH ICE L A: PDI .

PM;PDI-44 D:PD M NAME SYr E ebk:cn- J5tolzh D AT E --

-l //S /93 / - //R/93 lL-/ 393 / / //-

0FFICIAL RECORD LOPY -

Document Name: G:\DROMERIC\0CMG b

- - ~ - - . . m , , ,,1-.-,-,- ,-,-v, .-,,-,-,-,-.,.e a m y, ,,w,,v-.,_~, . , . , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, - -,,me,,,,,,r w r, yr v,,, .m, r y:m v p ,- w

Mr. John J. Barton Oyster Creek Nuclear GPU Nuclear Corporation Getierating Station cc:

Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq' fire Resident inspector Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2300 N Street, NW. Post Office Box 445 Washington, DC 20037 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Regional Administrator, Region I Kent Tosch, Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New Jersey Department of 475 Allendale Road Environmental Protection King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Bureau of Nuclear Engineering -

CN 415 BWR Licensing Manager Trenton, New Jersey 08625 GPU Nuclear Corporation 1 Upper Pond Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Mayor lacey Township 818 West Lacey Road Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Licensing Manager Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Mail Stop: Site Emergency Bldg.

Post Office Box 388 forked River, New Jersey 08731

. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .._m__.m.__ ___ .m _

ENCLOSURE 1 OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION E0CKET NO. 50-212 MEETING - JANUARY 6. J9jl ATTENDANCE L111 NRiE ORGANIZATISB A. W. Dromerick NRC/NRR/PD I-4 M. Banic NRC/NRR/EMCB William Koo HRC/NRR/DE/EMCB J. Zimerman NRC/NRR/PD I-4 Horace Shaw HRC/NRR/EMCB Robert A. McBrearty NRC/RI Ronald V. furia GPU Nuclear John Nakoski Resident Inspector, Oyster Creek M. M. Razzaque SRXB/NRR/NRC R. Nademus GPUN - NDE D. Slear GPUN - ERD D. Covill GPUN-NDE/ISI James Nestell MPR Associates Norman Cole MPR Associates David G. Jerko GPU Nuclear John Stolz NRC/NRR/PD I-4 R. Hermann NRC/NRR/EMCB

Oyster Creek Core Spray inspection I. Introduction Dave Slear i

11. Overview Dave Slear i A. Core Spray Description i

B. Observations / Video  !

C. Results of Evaluations l

D. Conclusion / Status ,

Ill. Discussion l -

A. Past History Dave Slear  :

l B. Evaluation.of 1992 Leak in inlet Dana Covil Pipe Coupling '

O. Mechanical Clamp Design Noman Cole I l

IV. Conclusions Dave Slear l-l l

l l

Date:

- January 6,1993

. 1 3

w ,,-w-, nNm,w

4

11. Overview A. Core Spray Description
  • Two Systems (I & ll)

- Two-360'spargers with spray nozzles '

Two inlet nozzles,180' apart

- Inlet supply piping in annulus feeding spargers >

a

  • Type 304 Stainless Steel inlet Piping, Elbows, Tees and Spargers  ;
  • Field-Welded Coupling in Supply Piping .

. 1 P

a t

.6 t

. 2-en

- e --m,,,E+wi > p. r 9 9 -a..wam .-m , yy -+ wwmew- u-w se e 'uyee%--wN A- ev e h d 'F<'esum->T.Fw

@r"Tt*-e-6-t+1^7r 9 99* F'tF%'w erp T F c %s t +M-4ef?W+--I' t s f P' p'- ga.-T " Vir-'T T 7- W Y'y"TW9'vnF

I I

VENT REACTOR VISSEL HEAD 3 VCS$1L HEAD STUD y VESSEL HEAD NUT w VESSEL FLANGE i

g STEAM DRYER ASSIMBLY [ STIAM PRES $URE MEASUREMENT TAP STEAM OUTLET NOZZL1 WATER LEVEL til- dd - lli11 =

3 MEASUREMENT TAPS -

8(PARATOR AS$tMSLY  ;  ; -

  • STEAM SEPARATOR <

HOLD DOWN BOLT K I 9 y"l-  ; 1 [> UIA L

  • 1

,,  ; - STEAM SEPARA10R N ,

i

. "I .

J j STANDPlPt SEPAR ATOR fitDWATER SPARotR q ),I; e N )

!r -

i

[ -

STFAM PLENUM HEAD ASSEMBLY CORE SPRAY NOZ2LE ,

h (7 I CORE SPRAY SPARGER _  ;

UPPtH CORE ORID [ ' y y >b

( h e.

lN CORT FLUX MONITOR AS$tMBLY N:!5 kb -

FUEL AS$tMBLY g

TEMPORARY CONTROL SHEET CONTROL ROD g ,,

, /

1 CORESHROUD ii ,,

l FutL SUPPORT PitCE M'  !

l.,

f, 4 CORE PLATE LOWER CORE ORID - -

VES$tL WALL fh:' .ij ,.

g f REClRCULATING WATER CONTROL ROD OUIDE TUBE [ ,, h  ::

4 OUTLET NOZ2LE

:-' 4 , , . .

OlFFU$tR O

IN O E i Ni P a '

N

)'

T CORE DIFFERENTIAL q.. , . IRr:! . ,,.. PRESSURE TAP

. . . - gp . , ,

'!6/ 4 h;

. g. ,

Vi Y.l{Qin '-

VESSEL SUPPORT SKIRT

%p, / i ..gMe a

e. ; , . nm.. ,

,5. },a ,.

IN CORE MONITOR ) 7~' j( P "" -

COVTROL ROD DRIVE SLttvt ) ' ' ' HOUSINO

" 4 M ii  ;>

1 FIGURE 301: REACTOR VESSEL

4 SYSTEMI l

l Inn g -

VESSEL

, N SHROUD g-- -~

/ \

/ \

\

/ .

, ', o <

f /k if

~

-9

/

\

,\

\ \ /

$PARGERg

^

/

t SYSTEM il FIGURE 10 5: CORE SPRAY SPARGERS SIMPLIFIED DI AGR AM

0 e.

E i

i 8

h i

a 8

g) )

a, ,

at g N w E e

b .

8 -

t

@ 5 e  %% e z

a

'J h Em e -

s w o.

CE W

i

.T

\ t - C J

-i li ); 3 L

y ,

a a.

1 Q U) s o Y

\n

  • O d

$ 'or

?

@d ar

. CORE SPRAY PIPING OUTSIDE INSIDE VESSEL WALL VESSEL WALL CRD 5 RETURN N,: .e. : .

t J. ~;'

fN. , ';ihkb k

-. FEE.CWATER EL.74'-ll' {.

' SPARGER

% e. u , . . . .m . ,

" 'c .. .-l tl , ,,-

R  %.

. . . . . 6'=5" REDUCING

[!$;05.I'dO!U:- .

ELBOW EL.73'-9". . VESSEL

/ N, SHROUD a ,,

3 i '

DETAIL A CORE '

SPRAY N0ZZLE /

[ I T

I I ,

.n '"'

- 5" SCH. ' .

40 PIPE -

6' SCH.40 PIPE

/

I

\.

7/, . CCRE SPRAY P!PE ~

  • EL. 68'-4 1/4" i

N N 4 --__ - - - - _

t l

s 1

OYSTER CREEK CORE SPRAY SPARGER  !

INLET PIPE COUPLING l VESSEL WALL i

6* SCH 40 LEAK LOCATION ~!.

. FIELD 7 WELD l/4 jW l

h

' VES'SEL ,

p y

,# y ,

j 7.156' o

s3 q

\

~

! h 7.625' [h l

2,813 s

l s

s

/[

/

3.313 r

= -_ %h ,

6" SCH 40-

'~

// -3/16 7 - SHOP-PIPE

// WELD 2.062_f 12.00 DETAIL A i

5:

1/4" Weld f-Location of Weld Defect 7 oreC Spray Pipe b l

/ l

-3" Clearance

/  :

Weld Blow Hole

/

j/ ,

1/4" Weld [

/

/ -

g/

N/

y[ l ~.031" N/

2"

~ .015"

\ y-/

\I i

\

N 7.156" Dia

! 6.625" Dia i

I 3/16" Weld

  • Assumes Uniform Annulus Leak Path For Weld Blow Hole m aam tre'/.'nt., 8

m 4

w Core Spray System 1 Flow vs RV Pressure Flow - 1000 GPM .

6

~

Shop Test

_ '(Baseline) 5 _-

IST Pt 4 _.

5 TS Requirement j v.

-- -- i GPM 3400 opm @ 125 psia

~

! 2:

i _

^

l. g _ Appendix K ' .

n.g iremoar,

~

-O

^ -

'-*^ '^-- '- - '- ' ' ' - ^

.O 50L 100 150 200 .250 300 350

. RV Pressure - PSIA 4

1 6

i

1. . . . . - - . . .. . .-

l Core Spray System 2 Flow vs RV Pressure 1

Flow - 1000 GPM 6 '

TS Requirement

[ 3640 GPM (* 125 PSIA-5 -

IST Pt 4 _-

~

" - - Margin -300 GPM l

Adjustment for  % ,} F Crack Flow ,

~

24oGeu: s 3 -

's Shop Test

's s (Baseline)

[ 's '

Appendix K 's

_~ ' i Requirement

- s 1 s

~

' ' ' ^^' ^

O ^

250 300 350 O 50 100 150 200 RV Pressure - PSIA 7

t II. Overview l 1

B. Observations ,

  • Air Test Results (= 2 to 3 psi Differential)

- Steady stream of air bubbles from System 1 pipe coupling

  • Visual Of Both Systems 1 and 2

- Outline of what is going to be seen on tape:

A. Location of core spray system in vessel B. Description of core spray piping configuration .

C. Description of coupling where weld defect is located D. Core Spray System / Weld defect bubbling E. Close up of weld defect - blow-hole F. View of same weld in core spray system #2

- 3-

.v+,- - + - ~'unr, N -- N e A- ,, , Ere -e

9

11. Overview C. Results of Evaluations Welds Assessment
  • System 1

- Clearly visible defect in 1/4" field weld - =1/8" blow hole in weld on back side of coupling where access is limited (i.e., about 3" Clearence to Vessel)

- No sign of cracking - fatigue or IGSCC

- No other indication detected in remainder of weld a

System 2

- The back side of 1/4" field weld also indicates access created weld difficulties

- A linear indication in one area of weld, but judged "not service related" (e.g., two parallel weld passes)

- No other indication detected 4

e e

4 II. Overview C. Results of Evaluation (Continued)

Existing Weld Conditions Do Not Affect Core Spray System Operability >

+ Structural

- The blow hole defect in the 1/4" field weld is not a structural problem - the limiting weld is a 3/16" weld on a smaller diameter - approximately.7" of the circum-ference of the 1/4" weld can be missing and it still be equivalent to the limiting 3/16" weld

- Service loads are small; fatigue cracking of acceptable fillet weld unlikely

  • Hydraulles

- 1/8" blow hole leakage is 1 to 3 gpm via annulus (see VG 8) l

- Still large flow margin

  • IGSCC/ Crevice Corrosion

- Interpretation of environmental and stress conditions in conjunction with visual evidence leads us to believe IGSCC/ crevice corrosion is not present  ;

- But if it were, crack growth over next cycle (2 years)-Is calculated to be less than = 3" and leakage through such an IGSCC would-be < .5 gpm which is still acceptable

. s.

i

. . , , + . , _ , _ _-...m -- ,-._----,,,_m..,_,..--- ,m-- _ - _ _ - . .-._.-__-,-..-.._--m..- m ,,, .

II. Overview D. Conclusion / Status Conclusions

  • Best Judgement is That Leak Due To Weld Defect Due To 20+ Years Of Heatup And Cooldown
  • Clamp Over The Joint is Not Needed And We Prefer Not To Install it, But Clamp And Tooling Design And Fabrication is Ongoing Status Clamp is Designed a

== 57' Long Tooling is Being Designed a

1st Clamp Delivery To OC 1/6 Refueling Complete 1/7 At 6 pm

  • 2nd Clamp Delivery To OC 1/9
  • Tooling Delivery To OC 1/8
  • Tooling Checkout ? Days
  • Clamp Installation ? Days 6-

I

\ .

Ill. Discussion A. Past History 1978

  • Crack Found in System II (Upper) Sparger, Confirmed By Air Test
  • Root Cause - Likely IGSCC Driven By Initial Forming / Installation Residual Stress
  • Redundant Mechanical Clamp installed
  • No Cracks / Leaks Found in Supply Piping 1980 Additional Indications in Spargers, Added 7 Clamps To System 11 Sparger, 2 Clamps To System i Sparger
  • No Leaks / indications in inlet Piping
  • Subsequent Computer Enhancement of Observable Indications in Spargers Showed They Were Probably Not Cracks Post-1980 Performed 4 Air Tests, 5 Visual Inspections
  • No Evidence Of Additional Leaks Or Indications Until 1992

+ 1992 Air Test Showed Leak In System l Coupling Field Weld 7

l 111. Discussion B. Evaluation Of 1992 Leak In inlet Pipe Coupilng

1. Applied Loads
  • Normal Operation = D + FD + TO

- Shear strass in weld = 1.1 ksi (4.3 ksi w/ Selsmic)

- Fatigue for sound weld is negligible

- Shear stress in weld = 2.7 ksi (5.3 ksi w/ Seismic)

For Plastic Collapse Of Pipe, Crack Would Have To Extend 230 (14 Inches)

Nomenclature D = Deadweight FD = Drag Force P = Internal Pressure TO = Reactor Vessel, Core Shroud, and Core Spray Pipe at 550*F TA = Reactor Vessel and Core Shroud at 550'F and Core Spray Pipe at 300 F 6-

111. Discussion l B. Evaluation Of 1992 Leak in Inlet Pipe Coupling (Continued)

2. Crack Growth Based On IGSCC
  • Assumptions ,

- Initial size = 1/2"

- Residual stress = Sy

- Crack growth rate calculated in accordance with NUREG 0313

  • Results

- At end of next cycle (2 years), crack could grow to 2" to 3"

3. Effect On Core Spray Flow Rate Flow Loss Through Leak is Not Significant

- 1/8" blow hole 1-3 gpm (observed condition)

- 3" x 1.5 mil crack < .5 gpm (from IGSCC)

Core Spray System Has Margin System I 500 gpm System ll 300 gpm 9

.- , ,. , - , n. -. .,

l11. DisCusslOn B. Evaluation Of 1992 Leak in inlet Pipe Coupling (Continued)

4. Defect inconsistent With IGSCC
  • Visible Defect is Rounded, Clearly A Weld Fabrication Flaw
  • High Bubbling Rate inconsistent With Air Flow From Tight IGSCC
  • Pipe Internal Environment Was Stagnant And Deaerated.

Little Or No Oxygen Available For IGSCC.

  • Highest Tensile Stresses As Well As Highest Oxygen Levels On Pipe OD. Expect IGSCC From OD And None is Observed.
  • Best Judgement is That Leak is Due To Weld Defect Which Opened Up Through 20+ Years Of Heatups/Cooldowns, Although Some Corrosion-Assisted Defect Growth Cannot Be Ruled Out 10 1

s Ill. Discussion C. Mechanical Clamp Design Design Criteria

  • Clamp Provides Same Structural Capability For Axlal Forces As Limiting 3/16" Shop Weld At The Coupling
  • Clamp Components Machined From 300-Series Stainless Steel Plate /Bar Stock
  • Clamp Meets Applicable Quality Assurance Program Requirements Clamp Design And Installation
  • Clamp Designed And in Fabrication Clamp Installation Tooling Designed And in Fabrication
  • Description Of Installation Sequence Assessment Of Clamp Effects
  • Additional Deadweight / Seismic Forces On Annulus Piping Associated With The Clamp's Added Mass Are Acceptable
  • Clamp Blocks Only A Very Small Amount Of Downcomer Flow Area - Has Negligible Effect On Recirculation Ratio
  • Flow-induced Vibration Loads Associated With Clamp Are Negligible

=- - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - , - - - - - - , . _ - _

I

'N

,/

, /' \

% \

s I h h .I

1. _ .- ..

s x .

' x,. - /

\

%,D n, i I

i

- ~ . - \ N ..

M @%

4

_ _.u h

k/

x'N x~

f!

i.

i i

/

7 .._

h \ l

/

' q'!  : ,

3_

! l i

.f1

\ h. - -

4 .

~

N  :

-g Q . .L l '

\ fTj

/

N l 'i,',

N kl ,

/

r > ;t >y 9

, f l i

. . x 1 -

I I

iI i I .

i i I '

u -

l i

\/ l i.. i-./ \L - - - - _ _ _

9 111. Discussion C. Mechanical Clamp Design (Continued)

Mock-Up Description

  • Mock-Up To Be Used For:

- Installation personnel training

- Installation tooling check-out

- Installation procedure verification Conclusions Regarding Clamps

  • Clamp Provides Structural Capability Equivalent To The Coupling's 3/16" Shop Weld a Clamp Installation Effort is Significant

- Requires extensive tooling development and mock-up training of personnel

- Risks associated with potential for dropping clamp components during installation

t IV. Conclusions

  • Observed Defect Likely An isolated Weld Defect
  • No Evidence Of IGSCC Or On-going Corrosion
  • No History Of IGSCC/ Crevice Corrosion in Thousands Of Other Fillet Welds At Oyster Creek Exposed To Similar Environment And Operating Pressure
  • If IGSCC Does Occur, Consequences Are Acceptable For Next Operating Cyclo
  • Mechanical Clamp Assembly Can Be installed (With Difficulty) And Will Reinforce Coupling
  • Preferred Course of Action

- Do not install clamp at this time

- Monitor defect and rest of C/S system next outage

- Complete design, check-out of clamp installation tools, procedures for possible future use

  • Basis

- Best evidence indicates clamp not required

- Clamp will seriously complicate monitoring

- Should not add components to reactor internals unless clearly required

..